A mixed bag ~ slash writing, Equus and Titanic
The struggle with fic continues on for another week, much to my displeasure. You'd think oscillating between four different fics, each with different characters and/or pairings, would increase the probability that you'll move on one or the other, but no. All dead in the water. I have also discovered something about writing slash. Pronoun confusion sucks. A lot. A whole big fucking lot. He or him? Well, which one? When you start using proper nouns to clarify who performs or receives an action, it also begins to get fairly repetative. That is one of the biggest pet peeves of mine as a writer. Redundancy and repetition. The same word too close to each other in a row? It ruins it for me and I notice it like a sore thumb. The end result? A fic with utterly for shit pacing. It's like a marching band marching over rocky terrain. Loud and all over the place. How do you slash writers do it? Please tell me!
In non angsty writing news, I saw Equus on Friday with my parents. Now before everyone asks how big Daniel Radcliffe's dick is, let me say something about the story and the acting. For those of you who don't know, the basic plot of the play is a seventeen year old boy comes under the psychiatric care of therapist Martin Dysart for blinding six horses in a stable where he was employed. The reasons and motivators behind Alan's violent act then unfold through a series of flashbacks and pych sessions with Dysart and this comprises the majority of the play. Pretty awesome plot, no? Alan's story is chock full of angst, religious symbolism, fetishism, bestiality (sort of), psychological anguish, warped sexuality and a dash of humor. The writer of the screenplay did quite a fine job, I must say. Props to Peter Shaffer. Same goes to the staging, costumes, lighting and the hot dudes in the horse costumes. Yummy.
On to the acting. I was not blown away. I think Richard Griffiths was miscast as Dysart, who really commands the entire play. Instead of an engaging, tortured psychaitrist, Griffiths weakly delivers his lines in a doddering, professorial manner reminiscent of a narrator, rather than an active character whose undergoing his own crisis and conflict while treating Alan. He brings no passion or emotion and that is problematic. I found myself zoning out in some of his longer monologues, which is certainly not what an audience member should be doing. I found him lacking.
Radcliffe, on the other hand, was pretty engaging. There were times when I wished he hit the lines harder, but overall he showed a broad emotional range from detached, mischievous, and nervous to ecstatic, manic and relieved. Rather than a sociopath, he exudes a pitiable sympathy that resonates well with the audience. There is no condemnation. You only want to see his suffering end. He also does a lot with his body and that physicality is what really puts Radcliffe and Griffiths in a different league. As all those promo shots show, he has a gorgeous, ripped body and boy do you get to see all of it, as well as Jill's, another girl he works with at the stable. Gotta say, tits and dicks really aren't what they used to be. You sort of don't even notice or care as his junk flaps in the breeze as he darts about the stage at the climax of the play. I found myself looking more at the girls body than I did at his, actually. I, uh, am not sure what that says about me, but it's all a big to do about nothing.
I also watched Titanic yesterday afternoon to get me in the mood for writing Bangel. Star-crossed lovers with a doomed romance? Who better than Jack and Rose!? When Titanic originally came out, I was 11 and I remember standing around the school yard waiting to be let in with my classmates for morning classes and listening to the buzz about the movie and Leeeeoooo. I immediately decided that I wouldn't see the movie just to be different and I didn't. Ha. Until my mom came home one day with the VHS and I sat down to watch it. I bawled my eyes out that first time and I have been very fond of the movie ever since. Leo and Kate really do a wonderful job in it. I love Kate. She always plays such strong female roles. If you haven't seen Little Children or Quills, you must!
Also, apartment hunting with friends is fun. I think I saw more of my neighborhood this afternoon than I have in the last 22 years I've lived in northern Manhattan.
In non angsty writing news, I saw Equus on Friday with my parents. Now before everyone asks how big Daniel Radcliffe's dick is, let me say something about the story and the acting. For those of you who don't know, the basic plot of the play is a seventeen year old boy comes under the psychiatric care of therapist Martin Dysart for blinding six horses in a stable where he was employed. The reasons and motivators behind Alan's violent act then unfold through a series of flashbacks and pych sessions with Dysart and this comprises the majority of the play. Pretty awesome plot, no? Alan's story is chock full of angst, religious symbolism, fetishism, bestiality (sort of), psychological anguish, warped sexuality and a dash of humor. The writer of the screenplay did quite a fine job, I must say. Props to Peter Shaffer. Same goes to the staging, costumes, lighting and the hot dudes in the horse costumes. Yummy.
On to the acting. I was not blown away. I think Richard Griffiths was miscast as Dysart, who really commands the entire play. Instead of an engaging, tortured psychaitrist, Griffiths weakly delivers his lines in a doddering, professorial manner reminiscent of a narrator, rather than an active character whose undergoing his own crisis and conflict while treating Alan. He brings no passion or emotion and that is problematic. I found myself zoning out in some of his longer monologues, which is certainly not what an audience member should be doing. I found him lacking.
Radcliffe, on the other hand, was pretty engaging. There were times when I wished he hit the lines harder, but overall he showed a broad emotional range from detached, mischievous, and nervous to ecstatic, manic and relieved. Rather than a sociopath, he exudes a pitiable sympathy that resonates well with the audience. There is no condemnation. You only want to see his suffering end. He also does a lot with his body and that physicality is what really puts Radcliffe and Griffiths in a different league. As all those promo shots show, he has a gorgeous, ripped body and boy do you get to see all of it, as well as Jill's, another girl he works with at the stable. Gotta say, tits and dicks really aren't what they used to be. You sort of don't even notice or care as his junk flaps in the breeze as he darts about the stage at the climax of the play. I found myself looking more at the girls body than I did at his, actually. I, uh, am not sure what that says about me, but it's all a big to do about nothing.
I also watched Titanic yesterday afternoon to get me in the mood for writing Bangel. Star-crossed lovers with a doomed romance? Who better than Jack and Rose!? When Titanic originally came out, I was 11 and I remember standing around the school yard waiting to be let in with my classmates for morning classes and listening to the buzz about the movie and Leeeeoooo. I immediately decided that I wouldn't see the movie just to be different and I didn't. Ha. Until my mom came home one day with the VHS and I sat down to watch it. I bawled my eyes out that first time and I have been very fond of the movie ever since. Leo and Kate really do a wonderful job in it. I love Kate. She always plays such strong female roles. If you haven't seen Little Children or Quills, you must!
Also, apartment hunting with friends is fun. I think I saw more of my neighborhood this afternoon than I have in the last 22 years I've lived in northern Manhattan.